New absorbed dose measurement with cylindrical water phantoms for multidetector CT

2015 
The aim of this study was to develop new dosimetry with cylindrical water phantoms for multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). The ionization measurement was performed with a Farmer ionization chamber at the center and four peripheral points in the body-type and head-type cylindrical water phantoms. The ionization was converted to the absorbed dose using a 60Co absorbed-dose-to-water calibration factor and Monte Carlo (MC) -calculated correction factors. The correction factors were calculated from MDCT (Brilliance iCT, 64-slice, Philips Electronics) modeled with GMctdospp (IMPS, Germany) software based on the EGSnrc MC code. The spectrum of incident x-ray beams and the configuration of a bowtie filter for MDCT were determined so that calculated photon intensity attenuation curves for aluminum (Al) and calculated off-center ratio (OCR) profiles in air coincided with those measured. The MC-calculated doses were calibrated by the absorbed dose measured at the center in both cylindrical water phantoms. Calculated doses were compared with measured doses at four peripheral points and the center in the phantom for various beam pitches and beam collimations. The calibration factors and the uncertainty of the absorbed dose determined using this method were also compared with those obtained by CTDIair (CT dose index in air). Calculated Al half-value layers and OCRs in air were within 0.3% and 3% agreement with the measured values, respectively. Calculated doses at four peripheral points and the centers for various beam pitches and beam collimations were within 5% and 2% agreement with measured values, respectively. The MC-calibration factors by our method were 44–50% lower than values by CTDIair due to the overbeaming effect. However, the calibration factors for CTDIair agreed within 5% with those of our method after correction for the overbeaming effect. Our method makes it possible to directly measure the absorbed dose for MDCT and is more robust and accurate than the CTDIair measurement.
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    29
    References
    6
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []